> if I understand your official position correctly, you do not concern yourselves with
> *) internalization of the basic BB framework
> *) adaption of the basic BB framework to newer versions of Windows
> *) porting of the basic BB framework to other platforms, like Linux, Apple OS and JVM
> *) adaption of the basic BB framework to better fit the state of the art
> In short, OberonCore does not see a need for a unified and central BB Framework 1.7.
> Is this correct?
1) United centre of responsibility for "unified and central BB Framework" is a precondition. There is no point in discussion about "unified and central BB Framework" without it.
Such centre may be assigned as the successor of BlackBox Support Oberon microsystems AG by acknowledgment. Or shall be elected by Community.
2) We are open to any development and it's our main activity (for example: support of BlackBox Russian documentation for BB 1.6 (
http://oberoncore.ru/projects/bb-docu-ru); BB1.6-rc6 Linux Console (
http://oberoncore.ru/projects/bb16lin-console)). Hypothetic "basic BB framework" (HBBBF) ported to newer Windows versions, Linux, Apple OS & so on… Is HBBBF compatible with standard BB? Or it inherit it's name only? Who can answer this question now?
There is the concrete public assembly — OberonCore BlackBox assembly on the other side. It's based on BlackBox Component Builder 1.6-rc6 (for Windows (XP, 32bit, …)) for now. And it's main development rule is "Primum non nocere".
Best regards,
OberonCore team.